http://www.pia.com/...dentAnalysisRev1.pdf Jeff did an excellent job in putting the rough details of each incident in his write up here. With the bridle under true tension there would not be the 2-4 feet of bridle between the freebag and where it went around the lines. Try it yourself, I did during a repack to see if I could get it to match up and with more than minimal tension on the pilot chute it will not line up that way and the material is messed up if it occurs with any airflow at all around it.

And I apologize it seems like it was a second Polish incident in which they never received the AAD after it was reportedly shipped. Italy is not mentioned in this report

With the bridle under true tension there would not be the 2-4 feet of bridle between the freebag and where it went around the lines. Try it yourself, I did during a repack to see if I could get it to match up and with more than minimal tension on the pilot chute it will not line up that way and the material is messed up if it occurs with any airflow at all around it.

So what are you saying about these photos then?

Do you assume the evidence was tampered with, or that the bridle being wrapped around the lines would not inhibit an opening from less than 1000ft?

if you read the words of the article you posted;

Quote:

Some have called this the controversial photo but I don’t see any controversy here. If any of this was out before impact, this would be a tangled mess. This is clearly not the case here. An impact at terminal is very violent and traumatic; it can produce many of such occurrences. Things can and do explosively fly many directions, in many ways. I would rather not give detail from my experience.

That is pure assumtion, It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as such.

Can you be more clear as to how you interpret that report.

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

The fibers in the cutter are a concern. but the routing of the bridle just does not make sense.

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

The freebag is flap up, so it is flipped atleast 180* from its proper orientation.

That is pure assumtion, It is difficult to beleive that the freebag could have been launched off the back of the jumper upon impact and the bridle ending up configured as such.

That is not “pure assumption” on Eric’s part but it is assumption on your part. Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to think about I assure you that what you see in the pictures not unusual. The forces generated when a 200+ lb body hits the ground at around 120 mph is somewhere around 49 tons. Since 60% of the human body is water the rebound energy is more than enough to break the loop and pitch the bag from the container.

In reply to:

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

How anyone can pack a reserve like that is beyond me, but we have all seen nd heard horror stories with packing.

You have no idea how this rig was packed. From your response I would say your knowledge of proper rigging is limited. You need to quit looking for something that is not there.

That is not “pure assumption” on Eric’s part but it is assumption on your part. Having been involved in more fatality investigations then I care to think about I assure you that what you see in the pictures not unusual. The forces generated when a 200+ lb body hits the ground at around 120 mph is somewhere around 49 tons. Since 60% of the human body is water the rebound energy is more than enough to break the loop and pitch the bag from the container.

So you beleive that upon impact the loop can snap, and the freebag can have perfect linestrech while the bridle neatly wraps itself around the lines....

I know there is alot of force upon impact of a 70-80kh weight hittning the ground at or near terminal. That does not explain how the bridle came to be configured as such. Do you sugest the freebag was thrown forward while the spring neatly danced around the lines, then continued the same trajectory?

In reply to:

You have no idea how this rig was packed. From your response I would say your knowledge of proper rigging is limited. You need to quit looking for something that is not there.

Sparky

I know that the bridle should not be around the lines and I know the closing and opening sequence, that is all I need to know to make a valid observation of that photo, your buddies assertion, is only that. It has merit and I am not saying that it is definately not true, though it seems really unlikely that the equipment could be configured like that from the loop breaking on impact.

I know that the bridle should not be around the lines and I know the closing and opening sequence,

Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect.

If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve pack tray, that would introduce two different factors to the reserve container opening. First, the energy that pushed the bag up and out of the container, something you would never see in a 'normal' opening. In a 'normal' opening, the freebag is pulled from above (by the PC), but in this case it would have been pushed from below.

Second, you would not have the wind speed to carry the PC up and away from the freebag. The spring pressure would launch it upwards, but beyond the spring pressure, there would be nothing more to move the spring anywhere.

What you end up with is the possibility that the freebag was pushed upawards with more force than the spring provided to push the PC upwards. Now the ffeebag has a way to overtake the PC on the way up, add in some lateral movement from either component on the way up or down, and you have the bridale wrapping around the lines.

Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.

Given what Sparky has posted about the rebound energy, the opening sequence would not be what you expect.

I never said that is what t expect, but knowing the opening sequence helps understand what might happen, or in this case, what might not happen in the event of loop snapping on impact.

In reply to:

If there was rebound energy moving up through the jumper and pushing the freebag upwards and out of the reserve ...

...Do we know for sure? No. But the options are that it happened on it's own, was misrigged, or was 'staged' to alter the results of the investigation. With no reason to suggest such a grave rigging error, no reason to suggest foul play that would motivate someone to doctor the equipment at the scene, and a mechanism (as explained above) to explain the configuration in which the equipment was found, we go with the explanation that it happen upon impact.

You missed the possibility that the reserve hesitated.

and we do indeed have reason to believe it was miss rigged as there is a bridle wrapped around a freebag... whether that is conclusive or not is a different story, but there is certainly reason to beleive...

and there are possibly several other scenarios that may or may not be considered or known.

There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it. if the reserve was in fact rigged with the bridle around the lines, then the lines would have met much resistance from the bridle but the figure 8's could still slide out and the locking stows could still slide out leaving the freebag compleltly locked closed by the bridle, the slider grommets would be the first object that would not slide through the loop of the bridle.

we all know how little time there is from 750 feet to impact.

With the bag locked closed the fabric would not be exposed to the relative wind.

How else do you suspect the opening sequence would go if the bridle was wrapped around the lines like that?

There is no way the bridle can dance around the lines and end up like that due to a broken loop on impact...

Truth is neither of us know for sure, you tend to beleive one thing and I tend to beleive another.

There is no way that freebag was out and exposed to 120mph air with the folds near the slider still perfectly arranged and undisturbed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it.

There is no way the bridle can dance around the lines and end up like that due to a broken loop on impact...

Truth is neither of us know for sure, you tend to beleive one thing and I tend to beleive another.

Every rigger I have talked to has come to the same conclusion. You statements don’t hold up the photo evidence and it is clear your knowledge of rigging principles is lacking when you insist your view is the only possible way it could have happened.

In reply to:

Truth is neither of us know for sure,

The truth is nothing is for sure except that I have to pay taxes and the sun will come up in the morning. And I am not willing to bet on the sun.

You are entitled to believe what you want and you are entitled to be wrong. You get one rigger or someone with experience in scene investigation to agree with your theory and I will listen to what they have to say. Until then you are just being hard headed.

If it was locked closed by the bridle the fabric would not be exposed now, would it. if the reserve was in fact rigged with the bridle around the lines, then the lines would have met much resistance from the bridle but the figure 8's could still slide out and the locking stows could still slide out leaving the freebag compleltly locked closed by the bridle, the slider grommets would be the first object that would not slide through the loop of the bridle.

If the lines came out of the stow pocket, and the locking stows were released... how the f*** do you expect the damn bridle to keep the bag shut? The stows have all played out, and there is literally NOTHING holding the bag closed.

Also, look at the folds on the sides of the canopy, the width reducing folds notice the canopy is still the same width as the freebag? its because the folds weren't even disturbed. A strong fan would do this, much more so falling at 120mph.

ETA: and if ya think about it, freefall would've probably blown air into the 'ears' of the freebag, blowing it further off the packjob.

I can see that at first glance, a bridle around a lines just below a freebag doesn't look good.

A big issue with Rhys' scenario is that it implies that the freebag came off only at impact (since the canopy is so neatly folded) , and that the lines stayed perfectly extended and straight after impact. The bag is towed with 10+ feet of lines at 110+ mph into the ground, and ends up in that neat configuration, instead of bouncing all over?

Rhys wrote:

Quote:

It looks to me the reserve canopy was in the freebag completely and locked closed by the bridle until the point of impact. This explains the lack of a tangled mess, the bounce/forces generated on the body and equipment may have configured the evidence in this manner.

It seems harder to avoid a tangled mess if the freebag is whipped into the ground at the end of the lines, than if it were in the container.

In both scenarios (freebag in or out of container before impact), you need the freebag whipped out to the end of the lines to leave them and the canopy straight.

In the scenario with the bag out in freefall, whatever wraps around the bottom of the freebag have to loosen off enough that the bag could slide off the canopy, and be left with bridle rotated just 3/4 of a turn around the lines. (Or, just 1/4 turn if one excludes the bag having landed on its back.)

In the scenario with the bag in the container during freefall, all the bag has to do as it flings out is rotate right , and be thrown off to the right, leaving some bridle that was ontop of it, now underneath, while the PC gets thrown off to the left, and voila: neat lines, canopy & bag land upside down, 3/4 wrap of bridle around the lines below the canopy. And as the bag hits the end of the lines, the bag's safety stow unlocks, and momentum carries even a light weight freebag off the canopy. (That's much like what happens when hand tossing a paragliding emergency parachute while on the ground, a light weight bag coming off the canopy.)

I think the 'unusually neat' configuration argues for the bag coming out on impact.

So is Rhys' scenario basically that the rigger packed the reserve with the bridle wrapped once around the lines?

And there are the torn fibres in the cutter, which can't be a design feature, older style cutter or not.

Hello Holger, I understand that this situation is uneasy at best. This unfortunately is the case with many Argus customers. However, the responses from Aviacom to date have not been sufficient in providing a proper root cause analysis nor a viable corrective action that addresses ALL of the recent failure modes now identified. More information has been posted on the PIA website which may provide more clarification on this for you and better help you understand the severity of the situation. Please read Jeff Johnstons report. This will probably help clear any confusion.

At this time, I do not see Sun Path allowing ARGUS installation anytime soon. Sorry I don’t have better news. But until the cutter design issues are addressed and resolved, this unit in its current configuration will not be approved for installation in the Javelin nor Javelin Odyssey. Yes, I would say it is time to purchase a new AAD which has a current installation approval.

The report by the Polish authorities indicate that the jumper went in with nothing showing hence the controversy about the partially cut loop. I have attached a picture showing the front of the rig. You will notice that it appears that initial contact with the ground is above the chest strap and into the 3 rings. This is consistent with the jumper being a little head down as if reaching for handles or PC. The picture of the reserve on the ground is also consistent with an impact of this angle. The rebound energy produced after impact would cause the bag to be ejected forward over the head and shoulders of the jumper. Initial impact most likely caused the loop to part and the PC went up. The rebound energy drove the bag forward allowing the PC and bridle to end up below bag and into the lines. From the photo evidence available I feel this is the most likely scenario. Given the opportunity to be on scene and see the situation in its entirety I may have come to a different conclusion but I am going on what is at hand.